bliznik

Registered bored user

bliznik wrote:
"The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend." - Abraham Lincoln
bliznik wrote:
My vote is for #2
bliznik wrote:
scheckydamon 

So a murderer should get the same punishment as a marijuana smoker. Got it. You'd be a great judge...in Wonderland.

"Off with their heads!!!"
bliznik wrote:
melcervini 

So you're meeting with a bunch of guys with high-powered weapons, stalking a Muslim Youth Retreat since you anticipate the retreat to be harboring Muslim extremists?

Seems like you're itching to kill fellow Americans because you think you can identify terrorist threats better than the FBI can. Talk about vigilante justice... =/
bliznik wrote:
scheckydamon

That's like saying, "All people lie, so they're all the same" or "All people have broken the law, so they're all the same." No, a person who steals $10 from 10,000 people deserves a different punishment than a person who steals $10 from 1 person.

If you cry wolf when there is no wolf 3 times, I'm going to tend not to believe you the 4th time you cry wolf. Trump has a pattern of disrespecting men in uniform. Is it possible that he respected the man in this one instance? Absolutely. But there's a pattern. If you want to ignore that pattern, then fine.

Each president definitely had different degrees of knowledge, respect, and foresight. Obama, both Bushes, Clinton, and Eisenhower were all incompetent in some ways and were all skilled in other ways. All were more skilled, empathetic, and truthful than Trump. 
bliznik wrote:
I have their own words on the matter, but I'm not some psychopath who keeps volumes or references and data round to argue with idiots on the internet.

You mean you don't base your decisions on peer-reviewed, fact-checked, recorded documents. Because those people are psychopaths. You just argue with passion and heart to prove what you wish were true. Got it.
bliznik wrote:
scheckydamon 

I'm sure this is all fabricated.

Just like I'm sure Trump didn't congratulate a soldier for receiving a purple heart.

...and he didn't try to show off how often he calls the families of dead soldiers in order to score political points.

...and he didn't make fun of McCain for being captured during the Vietnam War.

Trump has a history of being completely respectful and empathetic of war veterans, amirite?
bliznik wrote:
Deliberately unconstitutional, deliberately illegal and they knew it.

Source? Oh wait, you have none.

they passed these illegal laws anyhow because it gave them a window of opportunity to grab/restrict some guns, made them 'look like' they were doing something and maybe, just maybe, the courts might let them stand.

Source? Oh wait, you have none.

These people aren't idiots, they know exactly what they are doing: avoiding the Constitution to push their anti-gun agenda.

Source? Oh wait, you have none.

Again, this is why people ignore many of your arguments. You have a lot of arguments, but no facts to back it up. I mean, it's a nice little theory, and it must be fun to argue, but I back up my points with citations to peer-reviewed reports and you back up your points with...more arguments.

...and you call my arguments lies. Interesting.

How have you paid attention to the fact none of those things are remotely in the US Constitution and that the US Supreme says the 2nd applies today same as it did back then?

Actually, in 1875, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was perfectly fine for states to restrict arms sales, and since 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court looked at the totality of the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is, the 2nd amendment only applied to militias. It wasn't until 2008 when Scalia basically argued that the first part of the bill of rights doesn't mean anything, and he effectively rewrote the 2nd amendment to say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That interpretation is new, and that is what the NRA fought for. So, no, the 2nd amendment means something completely different today than what it meant just 10 years ago.

^ See that? that is an example of an argument backed with factual references. Something that your arguments completely lack. Your arguments contain passion, anger, and name-calling, but no citations to evidence.
bliznik wrote:
5cats 

Oh, so now you're arguing that any poorly drafted law related to gun-control is actually part of a master-plan to ban all guns.

OK.

So interesting how much you've diverged from the point of the original post, which is that guns are given massive preferential treatment over car control, airplane control, explosives control, nuclear power control, and pretty much every other weapon that can destroy multiple lives in a single action.

But that's the name of the game eh? Distract, distract, distract.
bliznik wrote:
I find it difficult watching this girl. Her tone of voice is condescending to the max and she does that weird pursed lip thing. She may be making some good points, but man, I think I'd prefer to read a blog that she wrote than watch her.
bliznik wrote:
5cats 

Cite a single proposed law with the support of more than 10 senators that bans all guns. Just one. Go. I'm waiting.

Oh wait, THEY ONLY EXIST IN YOUR IMAGINATION.

That is why people make fun of a lot of your comments man. They're not grounded in reality.
bliznik wrote:
captkangaroo Amen. On a related note, I also think that all drivers should be required to take a driving test every 5-10 years, not only when they become senior citizens. 
bliznik wrote:
5cats ...and because people like you and NRA supporters believe these lies, guns will continue to flow into the hands of anyone who has enough cash to purchase them irrespective of their knowledge, experience, sanity, or history of domestic violence.
bliznik wrote:
Looks like he rehearsed that move, although I wonder how much practice he had at the shooting range. Who shoots a gun one handed and cocks it downward repeatedly like that after every shot? Shouldn't his left hand automatically be slapping against his right-hand to stabilize the base?

...and the guy in the blue jacket basically ran THROUGH the gunfire??? What kind of instincts are those?!?!

Good thing everything worked out and everyone is still alive. But man, it's like a Benny Hill video of gun violence. 
bliznik wrote:

Where the fuck did I say that? That cocaine smuggling would vanish if legalized? You accuse ME of living in a fantasy world and you cannot even read what I wrote?

Just pointing out that the issue here is more or less, not presence and not presence. You argued that anyone could fly to Canada to get an abortion. Yes, but do all citizens who want to get an abortion travel to states where abortion is legal? No, only the ones with lots of resources do.

Not all gangs will always be armed. Some gangs will...mostly the ones with lots of resources. There are plenty of gangs in Japan, China, Australia, and the UK who are armed and will always be armed. But a vast majority of criminals aren't...because, as you pointed out, most people in general are cheap, lazy and stupid. 

why disarm the lawful citizens?

Again, you're living in a fantasy world. No law disarms citizens from owning any gun. The proposed laws prevent citizens from purchasing guns if the citizens refuse to educate themselves on basic gun use and gun safety or prevent citizens from purchasing guns that can kill 100 people within a minute. 

Car licenses and car registration reduces the number of cars on the street to people who are able to prove a minimum threshold of car driving education and responsibility. There are still car deaths, but there would be many more car deaths if we didn't require car licenses and car registration. Adding licensing requirements doesn't disarm anyone except for the uneducated, lazy, or irresponsible...who probably shouldn't be owning a gun.
bliznik wrote:
5cats Because Guns are the only way to stop or deter crime. OK, yeah. Live in that fantasy world.
bliznik wrote:
5cats So if we legalized cocaine we wouldn't have more of it in the US? OK, interesting fantasy world you live in.
bliznik wrote:
fuad119 

Prager University tends to put out videos like how all Muslims inherently support violent jihad, that abortion=murder of a thinking human being, and that rape statistics are inflated and should always be questioned.

So it's surprising they would support a video that denounces the conservative ideal that Confederate soldiers were all heroes who deserve places of honor.
bliznik wrote:
skypirate Here you go. The word "may" is used, so a judge will have the determination of how stiff the penalty will be. The term "bullying" is defined as "A form of harassment and is defined as an intentional course of conduct which is reasonably likely to intimidate, emotionally abuse, slander or threaten another person and which serves no legitimate purpose." Still rather subjective and allows all parties to argue within the court as to what these terms really mean. Interesting that it's totally fine to emotionally abuse someone so long as you can also prove to the court that you were emotionally abusing that person in order to serve a "legitimate purpose."

There have been some law professors who wonder if a city has the authority to issue jail time, or whether it should just be up to the state, but chances are that nobody so egregious to allow a judge to send them to jail will actually challenge this law in a court.
bliznik wrote:
colossalman In my opinion, any parent that lets their child bully them like that maybe deserves what they get.
bliznik wrote:
Shelworth 

One is preventative care and the other is diagnostic care. 

For example, to prevent cancer it's better to eat just a bit of red meat every year instead of eating a LOT of red meat every day (preventative), and you should also go see your doctor and cut out or irradiate malignant tumors you find (diagnostic).

It's common sense to do diagnostic care, but for some reason it's not common sense to do preventative care if it means giving up something that they love just to reduce the chance that something bad will happen in the future.
bliznik wrote:
markust123 Ugh, I need more sleep. You are completely correct. I corrected my statement.
bliznik wrote:
5cats

Just to compound on daegog's point about Chicago:

60% of illegal guns used in shootings in Chicago are imported from neighboring states cities...mostly from other cities in Illinois. If all the other areas around Chicago had gun control laws similar to Chicago's, then those criminals would have had to import their guns from outside the country, which is far more difficult to do.

Only 11% of the illegal guns used in shootings in Chicago were purchased from Federal dealers that require background checks.

So while Chicago does have strict gun control laws, they're ineffective since they're not implemented at the Federal level or at the State level. This is the same reason why a lot of women in Texas, with its strict abortion laws, are allowed to obtain abortions. They just drive over the state line and get one in a clinic. Of course, transporting yourself over the state line is much more difficult than paying someone else to import something over the state line, so Texas' anti-abortion laws are far more effective than Chicago's gun control laws, but the analogy is similar.
bliznik wrote:
I recall many, many programs to aid, help, promote african american interests.

Oh right, because giving someone a handout is the same thing as asking a person how they feel about what you just did, and then changing your actions in a thoughtful and respectful manner.

That reminds me of the time my friend didn't understand why a homeless person got angry at her for giving him her half-eaten sandwich when she walked by him and saw his "please help" sign. She solicited comments from most of her friends but never once thought to ask the homeless guy--or anyone else who had ever been homeless.
bliznik wrote:
When were you brought up? The 1940s ???

I grew up in the 80's, when polls like this were never broken up by demographic and teenage nuance could only be found in obscure novels or Japanese anime.